Just recieved this e-mail.....

B and Spence

At this point I won't fan the flames any further. Suffice to say that we have different life experiences which form our views on the world.

To me the US is analogous to a team. "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". Philosophical debate is a luxury this country affords to the left and to the right. Other countrys aren't so fortunate. In the end, we must all be of one purpose if we are to survive in this violent world.

A long time ago, I swore to defend the Constitution and will do so till the day I die. The Marines taught me how to use a rifle. I was, and am, very good with it.

So as BruiseLeee once said in a different thread, "What about them hockey teams, eh?" :D :D
 
A great and wise American once said (and I know you've all heard it but it's worth saying again):

You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't please all the people all of the time.

And so it goes.
 
One more word on the World Trade Centre bombing and then I'll quit, I promise (or at least I'll try ) - I think some of the negative sentiments from Europe (and the subsequent American astonishment) arise from a resentment on the part of some non-Americans at the American assertion that 'this changes everything'.
From the point of view of Europe it doesn't - because this sort of attack is a relatively new experience for America (aside from Pearl Harbour, which is similar, but I don't think had the same impact - just different I mean, not necessarily greater or lesser), but the UK and Germany, for instance, in the last century, have already experienced this sort of unhuman 'death from above' which falls on innocent civilians - so the NYC bombing doesn't involve a shift in 'world-view' for Europeans, because they've already experienced similar events>>

1. The attack cost billions of dollars to the world's economy. How many more could the world withstand?
2. The scope was larger than ever seen. The nature of the attack, not countries per say, but an organization devoted to the destruction of the West, is now in a new context. Europe in current times has seen nothing like this.


munk
 
Except for us they would have and still might.

We are not right all of the time but we are right enough of the time so that I'm not ready to trade my US passport for any other I know of.
 
Except for us they would have and still might. >>>

Darn right!! And we know the terrorists are working on dirty nukes. The scale is enormous and the threat is to all of us in this world together. Bush has this right.

......

Today I am going to my son's small rural school bringing two Khukuris with me for 'Show and Tell." There are only about 10 kids in the one room class, grades kindergarten through 5th.

I've asked permission to wave the, 'zero tolerance' policy to do this. It's gonna be a gas.


munk
 
One more word on the World Trade Centre bombing and then I'll quit, I promise (or at least I'll try ) - I think some of the negative sentiments from Europe (and the subsequent American astonishment) arise from a resentment on the part of some non-Americans at the American assertion that 'this changes everything'. But what some Europeans fail to realise is that it's perfectly valid for Americans to say 'this changes everything' because it does for them
Click to expand...

As usual Ben, well said and intelligently explained:) Your explanation actually helped me understand some of the sentiment comig out of Europe post 9/11.

Now THIS guys is how you conduct a respectful discussion!!:) Beoram and Semp who are on totally opposite sides of the spectrum are discussing issues with total mutual respect--as it should be:)

I promised Uncle in an email (apologizing for tearing Rust a new one on the forum because of stress and trouble it may have caused for Uncle) that I wouldn't respond to Rust no matter what he says when he comes back (as I'm sure he will)and I will honor that promise.

I completely agree with Yvsa that the issue with Rust was NOT free speech at all, but trolling and disrespectful behaviour. Free speech is great, but abusing that right with the intent of causing trouble and fostering hatred is something else. All public forums need rules by which they can function with some degree of decorum and efficiency, and I respect and admire the way Uncle Bill runs this one. I don't know what the solution to managing trolls is, but I guess untill one is found I'll just try and ignore them since its the only thing that does them any harm. The damn shame of it is that someone like that can come in here and stir up trouble just for the sake of causing trouble, when they and all of us know it ain't about expressing their views so much as it is about criticizing OURS to upset us and cause problems. Its like hate speech, IMO. The intent of hate speech is to harm people and disrupt their lives (verbal terroism IMO) and because of that it isn't protected in the same way as other forms of self-expresion under our constitution. So what am I saying? I don't really know beyond the fact that Rust was doing something wrong in how he behaved. Could he have been banned and still keep free speech alive and well--I don't honestly know. That said I damn sure wouldn't want to be in Uncle's shoes and have to decide what content is ok and what isn't---too weighty a responsibility for me and I wouldn't do as good a job as he does I'm sure.

Just my $.000002 worth of blabbering:)
 
Originally posted by Semper Fi
B and Spence

At this point I won't fan the flames any further. Suffice to say that we have different life experiences which form our views on the world.

To me the US is analogous to a team. "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". Philosophical debate is a luxury this country affords to the left and to the right. Other countrys aren't so fortunate. In the end, we must all be of one purpose if we are to survive in this violent world.
Click to expand...

I agree with you - that's my point really. When politicians who are meant to be carrying out the will of the people engage in covert and immoral actions (foreign or domestic) on behalf of the big businesses who fund them, that subverts the Union you refer to - using your team analogy, it's like the manager of a team rigging matches. And in the same way, one doesn't blame the team, but only the manager.

But, yes, we all do certain have different life experiences which give us very different viewpoints on the world - which is why it is important to be able to open and civilised discussions, because each of us has knowledge that others haven't, and we need to be willing to both share and receive that sort of knowledge...but enough.

--B.
 
Originally posted by munk
One more word on the World Trade Centre bombing and then I'll quit, I promise (or at least I'll try ) - I think some of the negative sentiments from Europe (and the subsequent American astonishment) arise from a resentment on the part of some non-Americans at the American assertion that 'this changes everything'.
From the point of view of Europe it doesn't - because this sort of attack is a relatively new experience for America (aside from Pearl Harbour, which is similar, but I don't think had the same impact - just different I mean, not necessarily greater or lesser), but the UK and Germany, for instance, in the last century, have already experienced this sort of unhuman 'death from above' which falls on innocent civilians - so the NYC bombing doesn't involve a shift in 'world-view' for Europeans, because they've already experienced similar events>>

1. The attack cost billions of dollars to the world's economy. How many more could the world withstand?
2. The scope was larger than ever seen. The nature of the attack, not countries per say, but an organization devoted to the destruction of the West, is now in a new context. Europe in current times has seen nothing like this.
Click to expand...

There's a point implicit in your statements which is actually quite important and not always recognised - the NYC attack, being on the World Trade Centre - was partially an attack on the West in general, and not just the USA - certainly there were a number of Europeans and other 'non-Americans' who were killed, and the economic results of the attack are hard to comprehend.

But all destruction of this sort, justified and unjustified both, costs large sums of money to the world's economy - you say 'The nature of the attack, not countries per say, but an organization devoted to the destruction of the West, is now in a new context', in terms of war I'm not sure how a country (a sort of organisation after all) differs from a less defined organisation - would it have been better if Country X had carried out the attack? And one could say that the London blitzes had a similar 'context-shifting' effect - substitute 'destruction of Freedom' or something appropriate to the attack of a Fascist nation, for 'destruction of the West'.

But we're going to enter back upon the very point I was addressing - for some people the attack effects a drastic shift in world view and for others, though it is not the less horrible or evil, it is not as new and unexperienced an event, in terms of national memory.

--B.
 
Originally posted by munk
Except for us they would have and still might. >>>

Darn right!! And we know the terrorists are working on dirty nukes. The scale is enormous and the threat is to all of us in this world together. Bush has this right.
Click to expand...


I'm all for the 'war on terror' (obviously), so long as it is directed against the actual terrorists and doesn't turn into an excuse to, say, invade Iraq.

Ah, but who invented the dirty nukes in the first place? And so it goes...



Today I am going to my son's small rural school bringing two Khukuris with me for 'Show and Tell." There are only about 10 kids in the one room class, grades kindergarten through 5th.

I've asked permission to wave the, 'zero tolerance' policy to do this. It's gonna be a gas.
Click to expand...

let us know how that goes - should be interesting :)

-------------------

btw - thanks MauiRob for your message :)


~~~

--B.
 
But all destruction of this sort, justified and unjustified both, costs large sums of money to the world's economy
Click to expand...

You have an interesting point. It gets us back to the old refrain that in the end "its all about money". One of the questions that we have not asked is the extent to which EU countries are currently invested in the Middle East. We know that Europe has been striving for years to develop better political ties to the region, and the next logical deduction would be to leverage these improved relationships to provide economic benefit.

Perhaps one of the reasons Europe wants the U.S. to stand down on the region is becuase the infrastructure we would be destroying is underwritten by European businesses, banks, and governments. Why would they want us to damage structures in Iraq, if those structures are securing their financial transactions and generating the economic where-with-all to service their outstanding debt.

I don't have the answer, but this is a far more substantial arguement then the touchy feely stuff the press has been feeding us. It is probably not about our religion, our stand on global warming, the way we part our hair, or even the amount of habitat that we take away from spotted owls; it about the amount of money we will be taking out of their pockets by blowing up their customers, and their property.

n2s
 
I saw a cartoon recently:

Judge sitting on the bench. Terrorist standing in front of the bench. Man in black suit standing in front of bench saying, "Judge, can't we execute him now and have the trial later?"

I know how that judge feels.

It's not always a case of what we want to do but what we HAVE to do. And I know there's a hundred old veterans here who will back me up on that statement 100%.
 
It's not always a case of what we want to do but what we HAVE to do. I know how that judge feels
Click to expand...

I understand that completely Uncle Bill:) I hope you understand that I realize the difficult position you are in from what I wrote above, and don't blame you for what you decided as you were only doing what you believe is the right thing.
 
Ah, but who invented the dirty nukes in the first place? And so it goes... >>> beoram

I didn't invent the revolver but use one. The ills of this world do not fall upon the shoulders of the US, though it bears the load, and yes, takes disproportionately. But it is redistributed, isn't it?

As for school, 10 wide eyed kids, I'd say. The teacher showed the kids a map where Nepal was and I spoke briefly and Lt. Frederick Young. One little girl refused to pass along the sheath. (the khuks were on the desk by me, or course.) She apparently wrinkled her nose at intruments of death. We learn our perceptions early.

The other kids were enraptured. One little guy wanted to know if any of my blades had been to war. ( he wanted to see blood on the steel, I'm sure.) My two year old sat next to his brother for the demonstration.


Thanks for asking about school, beoram. I know I'm new and not well known.

munk
 
That's interesting, Munk. Thanks for sharing.

And thanks, Rob, for support.

Main Entry: mod·er·a·tor
Pronunciation: 'mä-d&-"rA-t&r
Function: noun
Date: circa 1560
1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR
2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group
3 : a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor
- mod·er·a·tor·ship /-"ship/ noun
Main Entry: me·di·a·tor
Pronunciation: 'mE-dE-"A-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, from mediare
Date: 14th century
1 : one that mediates; especially : one that mediates between parties at variance
2 : a mediating agent in a physical, chemical, or biological process

I view the above as my job description and if I take on a job of any kind I try to do it to the best of my ability.

I don't always do it right and I don't always do it well but I always do it to the best of my ability and I always stick to my basic convictions.
 
I have heard no one say that our government and it's system is perfect, but as I have said elsewhere on the form. It will have to do until something better comes along. I have read about other forms and none seem perfect.

If there are those who don't love it. Pack your trash and go find some place that enjoys you pacifist concepts.

Our freedoms are only of true value to those who are willing to die for them.
 
Originally posted by Bill Martino
It's not always a case of what we want to do but what we HAVE to do. And I know there's a hundred old veterans here who will back me up on that statement 100%.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Semp --
 
Tricky issues, and the boundaries between what is perceived as acceptable or not are constantly shifting.

Often contradictory requirements must be satisfied to some extent to get anything done.

A couple cases in point:

"Several chopper sites are being built . The problem is the Nepal govt which has final say over the use and arming of the bases. They do not want any known American involvement at this time. "

Many in the US feel that sending troops of any kind to a foreign country must be fully discussed and approved by the Congress in an open manner. Yet to do that means that they may not be allowed to even enter Nepal. What is "covert"?
------

The "State of Emergency" decreed in Nepal includes conditions that are totally opposed to American's values of freedom. The government has exhibited systemic corruption. Most here feel (myself included) that given the Maoist's actions, some sort of "State of Emergency" is justified at this time as is providing relatively massive US military aid. The current (lessor of two evils) government's existence is threatened. To what extent must the insurgents be defeated/destroyed before the admittedly repressive "State of Emergency" is lifted? What degree/manner of opposition to the failings of the current government makes one a terrorist or criminal?

I am certain that most here, and most Americans would differ with the judgement of the current Nepali government when that time comes. Suddenly, the qustion of whether the US is militarily supporting an undesireably autocratic, still corrupt regime may arise. The boundary will have moved, yet the government and its behavior may be unchanged.

Hopefully the US will remain engaged so such problems don't occur. Many of the sad cases in the past occured because the US abandoned things once the initial crisis was over. Or when the boundary moved as described above. But that time is just when the most imporant work needs to be done. Other wise a bigger problem grows up to bite the US in the *ss. There are too many examples to think otherwise.

The pressures of business profits, and the susceptibility of all governments (including ours) to those pressures further muddies the waters.
 
Pappy, let's examine your observation:

"Our freedoms are only of true value to those who are willing to die for them."

The fact is our freedoms are of true value to everybody including those who don't deserve them and who will use them to their utmost advantage even to the point of trying to destroy those very freedoms they are using and abusing.

It is only because of a lot of "a few good men" that we were able to establish and maintian those freedoms.

And yes, by God, they are worth fighting and dying for.

I'll admit there are times when I want to forget these freedoms and just do what comes naturally.

"Let's execute him now and have the trial later."

But that defeats the whole purpose.

It's a tough act but if we don't do it who the hell is?
 
I kept from posting until now to cool down. It hasn't worked well enough yet.

I do want to thank those who tried to defuse the situation. You are very, very good guys.

To those who called **** on his actions, you may only be very good guys, but then again your names have been mentally noted as the ones I'd want to cover my back.

I agree that the issue is not freedom of speech but **** couching his deliberately provocative and offensive activity behind the issues of freedom of speech and fairness.

As simply put as I can - those who do not abide by, and who work to subvert the social conventions that are in place, don't deserve the protections afforded by those conventions.

Karma will take care of the matter, just not nearly quickly enough for my taste. To my mind **** is akin to a maoist, and should be dealt with as such. Now I'll close before I start having too much fun.
 
Sir, If you are on the side of God fearing, Country loving Americans, you can have all the fun you want to for all I care. Have a happy day!!!

Semper Fi!!!
J.L.P.
Smithville, TX:D :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top